Would you ever euthanize a pet that had medical issues that were not terminal

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:A cat who is 10 or 11 and not in any pain. No. Not unless I’d exhausted all options to rehome my pet (with someone trusted or through a rescue). At the same time, I have a cat who had a chronic health issue around that age that could only be cured through surgery. At the time of diagnosis we could not afford it. The surgery estimate was close to 7k. So I get that sometimes it is just not possible to do more. The vet assured us it would be ok to euthanize when his quality of life became severely impacted. I spent a lot of time researching more affordable care and even contemplated traveling out of state to a vet school. I dreaded reaching the point in time when we’d have to make a final decision. Fortunately, his condition was able to be controlled for a while through meds and he deteriorated very slowly. 2 years later when surgery was unavoidable, a caring vet helped us to identify a surgeon who could do the surgery for far less - 4k. By then we had a little extra money set aside and were relieved to be able to do it. If it wasn’t curative, I would not have.

We have an elderly dog -13 - and I question his quality of life. He doesn’t have cancer and can move about without pain. But he has slowed down a lot and seems confused and anxious. We will not be treating any more medical conditions beyond antibiotics.

Hi PP. Regarding your dog - doggy dementia is real, and is a QOL issue. It can also be pain-related - it's not always easy to tell if dogs have pain. We had an elderly dog who could move around okay but tended to pace, lick joints, and generally be distressed. The vet suggested it could be joint pain, and pain med rx helped (for a while).

Thank you for this feedback. Our old vet insisted he was not in pain but I know animals can hide pain. I’m also thinking dementia is an issue. I’m going to seek another opinion.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:It can be hard to be brave, and do the right thing for an animal that doesn't have any autonomy.

Please ignore the posts comparing dogs to human children. They are probably bots bought and paid for by the private equity veterinary industry. Which is only interested in extracting as much money from you as possible, and actively plays on your guilt. This industry does NOT have the best interest of pet animals in mind. Only profit. And it uses some pretty insidious techniques to separate you from increasingly eye-popping sums.

There's a reason pets have gotten so expensive. Sure, there are think-pieces galore about increasing isolation and the crisis of loneliness, but the pets piece is at least partially by design. All that *content*, all those "cute" clothes (clothes! for animals!), the damp-eyed emotional messaging... it's a con. Or at the very least, a marketing strategy. It is deployed to change your thinking around animals, and to increase your spending. f

Short answer: love your pets, be kind to all animals, know that the time to say goodbye might be before the last breath.

This is fascinating. I’m not sure how bots work - are you saying private companies buy bots to spread messages/push ideas? I didn’t realize this.

I appreciate your post; you helped me look at things from a new lens.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

Re-read the post you’re responding to. PP wasn’t talking about $10k cancer treatments. She was talking about routine care, like 2-4 vet visits per year and things like arthritis medication. If you can’t afford routine care (not extraordinary life saving measures), then you should not get a pet. You don’t need to be rich, but you do need to be able to meet your pet’s basic needs.

If a pets needs cost more than 1k a year, that’s too much for many families. Sorry you live in a bubble.

I don’t live in a bubble. I completely understand that those families can’t afford a dog. It’s sad if they want a dog and can’t afford one, but even healthy dogs can easily cost $1k a year in vet bills. If you can’t afford to care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one. No one is entitled to have a dog.

New poster. So many poor ppl I know have dogs. It’s a mystery

[Anonymous]

New poster again. While I don’t understand why poor ppl get pets (since they make it harder to rent and are generally an expensive thing), I also don’t understand how pet care became so expensive. Cancer treatment? Overnight hospital stays? We aren’t talking about people. Our ancestors would shoot a sick dog to end its pain - and would get a new one. They loved their dogs but they very well knew they weren’t people.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster again. While I don’t understand why poor ppl get pets (since they make it harder to rent and are generally an expensive thing), I also don’t understand how pet care became so expensive. Cancer treatment? Overnight hospital stays? We aren’t talking about people. Our ancestors would shoot a sick dog to end its pain - and would get a new one. They loved their dogs but they very well knew they weren’t people.

Many of our ancestors also owned slaves and engaged in human sacrifices. I wouldn’t wax nostalgic about shooting a sick dog rather getting treatment for medical care.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster again. While I don’t understand why poor ppl get pets (since they make it harder to rent and are generally an expensive thing), I also don’t understand how pet care became so expensive. Cancer treatment? Overnight hospital stays? We aren’t talking about people. Our ancestors would shoot a sick dog to end its pain - and would get a new one. They loved their dogs but they very well knew they weren’t people.

You have no idea what medical care our ancestors would have provided to their dogs had treatment options been available. The field of veterinary medicine has advanced tremendously in the last 50 years, even the last 25. The research and development and medical equipment are very expensive. The cost of health care in general has skyrocketed over the last 50 years.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:New poster again. While I don’t understand why poor ppl get pets (since they make it harder to rent and are generally an expensive thing), I also don’t understand how pet care became so expensive. Cancer treatment? Overnight hospital stays? We aren’t talking about people. Our ancestors would shoot a sick dog to end its pain - and would get a new one. They loved their dogs but they very well knew they weren’t people.

Many other cultures treat pets similarly. They're not people. Wackadoodle people will start arguments about this, using humans as examples. They should be ignored completely because domesticated animals kept as pets are simply not the same as humans, nor should they be prioritized similarly. Human needs come first, so if you can't pay your bills because of the pet, it's time for the pet to go. For an older pet with QOL issues that are expected to increase, a humane death with the family it knows and loves is an acceptable option, and preferable to rehoming (in most cases) as there simply aren't enough homes looking for older pets with QOL issues.

USian pet culture has gone totally mad, and there's a whole industry built to profit off it. People need to think, and this thread clearly shows how little of that is going on these days. Y'all scare me!

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:New poster again. While I don’t understand why poor ppl get pets (since they make it harder to rent and are generally an expensive thing), I also don’t understand how pet care became so expensive. Cancer treatment? Overnight hospital stays? We aren’t talking about people. Our ancestors would shoot a sick dog to end its pain - and would get a new one. They loved their dogs but they very well knew they weren’t people.

You have no idea what medical care our ancestors would have provided to their dogs had treatment options been available. The field of veterinary medicine has advanced tremendously in the last 50 years, even the last 25. The research and development and medical equipment are very expensive. The cost of health care in general has skyrocketed over the last 50 years.

Follow the money. The basic care hasn't increased in value, but someone's making a LOT more money.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

So all children should have ponies? Listen, pets are great, and they're luxury items. Not every family can afford a pet just like not every family has a pony. If you have a pet you have to part with because you can't afford it, that's reasonable. Life happens. If you have to part with a pet because you can't afford it and then go to the pet store and get a new one, that's ridiculous. PP's comment wasn't the "never get a pet again, you filthy poors!" you're apparently interpreting it to be. It was the simple logic of "if you can't afford the pet you have, you can't afford new pets" and they're correct. Maybe, years later, your circumstances will improve to a point where you have ample savings and budget flexibility such that pet ownership is once again an option. But if you're thinking about jettisoning your pets to make ends meet, that time is NOT now.

Getting "disgusted" by your own misinterpretation of a factual statement is wild. Get help.

If you think you’re a good person for spending 1k and up on a pet visit while families and children are going without food, then yes, you’re disgusting

That's ridiculous. People can prioritize their pets if that's part of their value system and they can afford it.
Have you chosen to live in a squalid apartment, with no car, and donate your salary to the poor and hungry? If not, be quiet.

No, I choose to prioritize people. I treat my pets well and they have a VERY good quality of life, but yes, when they start to age and have health issues, I won’t feel guilty if I choose not to start spending hundreds of dollars on them a year. It’s all relative. One shouldn’t feel guilted into paying hundreds for care of an elderly pet. You are only serving your own needs. That’s what people on here are doing and they think it makes them good people. It doesn’t.

That may be your opinion of how you behave, we have no evidence of that. If you think that your pets life should end because "hundreds of dollars" is too much for you to spend on medical care for an animal, and prefer to spend your money on cars and a big house, and leisure travel, you're serving your own needs, and shouldn't be a pet owner.

Why are you sock puppeting? Is it really so important for you to post multiple times, ranting?

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

Re-read the post you’re responding to. PP wasn’t talking about $10k cancer treatments. She was talking about routine care, like 2-4 vet visits per year and things like arthritis medication. If you can’t afford routine care (not extraordinary life saving measures), then you should not get a pet. You don’t need to be rich, but you do need to be able to meet your pet’s basic needs.

If a pets needs cost more than 1k a year, that’s too much for many families. Sorry you live in a bubble.

I don’t live in a bubble. I completely understand that those families can’t afford a dog. It’s sad if they want a dog and can’t afford one, but even healthy dogs can easily cost $1k a year in vet bills. If you can’t afford to care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one. No one is entitled to have a dog.

Why do you think you’re entitled to tell people what they need to spend on a pet? Genuinely curious.

For the same reason it's okay to say, "If you can't afford to buy dog food, you shouldn't get a dog."
Caring for a pet adequately includes both food and regular veterinary care. You should not take on responsibility for another living being for which you cannot or will not provide a basic minimum of care.

Feeding a dog and paying for medical care beyond the basics are two very different things.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

Re-read the post you’re responding to. PP wasn’t talking about $10k cancer treatments. She was talking about routine care, like 2-4 vet visits per year and things like arthritis medication. If you can’t afford routine care (not extraordinary life saving measures), then you should not get a pet. You don’t need to be rich, but you do need to be able to meet your pet’s basic needs.

If a pets needs cost more than 1k a year, that’s too much for many families. Sorry you live in a bubble.

I don’t live in a bubble. I completely understand that those families can’t afford a dog. It’s sad if they want a dog and can’t afford one, but even healthy dogs can easily cost $1k a year in vet bills. If you can’t afford to care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one. No one is entitled to have a dog.

Why do you think you’re entitled to tell people what they need to spend on a pet? Genuinely curious.

Ethics dictate that if you’re going to take on the responsibility of caring for a helpless dependent, you must take care of that dependent’s basic needs. 2-4 vet visits and $1k of medical expenses spread out over a year is very, very basic care: no cancer treatment, no surgeries, no overnight hospital stays, no specialists, just routine checkups, vaccinations, a yearly heart worm test, and monthly heart worm and flea/tick preventatives.

Why am I obligated to take my indoor cat to the vet 4 times a year? Who decides this? My kids don’t go to the doctor 4 times a year.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:OP, look into pet insurance, different vets, and other ways to foot the bil for reasonable care that gives your pet good quality of life. It is reasonable to see a vet 2-4 times a year, give painkillers for arthritis, etc.

Care that prolongs life without good quality is cruel, and so is giving up an elderly sick pet who has spent its whole life with your family. I would euthanize in both situations. I would not put a dog through something like cancer treatment either.

But if you decide to euthanize because you cannot afford routine care ... don't you dare get another dog and start down this path again. Emergencies and illnesses are part of the cost of pet ownership.

How dare you say that? What an ass you are. So only wealthy children should get the benefit of having a pet? And any child who has parents who can’t afford 10k cancer treatments for their dog should be denied any chance of the learning, love and companionship a pet provides? People like you truly disgust me. So out of touch and judgmental

Re-read the post you’re responding to. PP wasn’t talking about $10k cancer treatments. She was talking about routine care, like 2-4 vet visits per year and things like arthritis medication. If you can’t afford routine care (not extraordinary life saving measures), then you should not get a pet. You don’t need to be rich, but you do need to be able to meet your pet’s basic needs.

If a pets needs cost more than 1k a year, that’s too much for many families. Sorry you live in a bubble.

I don’t live in a bubble. I completely understand that those families can’t afford a dog. It’s sad if they want a dog and can’t afford one, but even healthy dogs can easily cost $1k a year in vet bills. If you can’t afford to care for a dog, you shouldn’t get one. No one is entitled to have a dog.

Why do you think you’re entitled to tell people what they need to spend on a pet? Genuinely curious.

Ethics dictate that if you’re going to take on the responsibility of caring for a helpless dependent, you must take care of that dependent’s basic needs. 2-4 vet visits and $1k of medical expenses spread out over a year is very, very basic care: no cancer treatment, no surgeries, no overnight hospital stays, no specialists, just routine checkups, vaccinations, a yearly heart worm test, and monthly heart worm and flea/tick preventatives.

Why am I obligated to take my indoor cat to the vet 4 times a year? Who decides this? My kids don’t go to the doctor 4 times a year.

I’ve never had a cat and don’t know anything about cats. I was talking about a dog. They usually need vaccinations multiple times per year.

Between a yearly well exam and dentist visits every 6 months, you should be taking your kids to see a doctor 3 times per year even if they have zero illnesses or injuries and don’t go to the eye doctor. That’s the minimum standard of care recommended.

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:Pets can’t communicate that they are in pain. They don’t understand they are going to the vet for a procedure that helps them. They are just scared and in pain. They in fact instinctively hide their pain as in the animal world it would attract predators.

I guarantee you that if you asked this question to 20 retired veterinarians who worked before the private equity scourge in veterinary care, they would ALL say it’s better to euthanize the pet.

This is correct, because 99% of people who have pets they actually take to the veterinarian in the first place value their pets' places in their lives, and good veterinarians know that there are plenty of healthy animals in need of homes and actually do feel bad about prolonging the lives of the ones that are ill just for their own financial benefit. They aren't dancing in the throes of McMansion luxury. It's a hard type of medical practice. You have to celebrate young healthy lives and let other ones go. They aren't sentient in the same way humans are.

I have a SIL who is a three decade vet surgeon and my daughter is working her way through vet tech school. She keeps bringing home pets like lab rats because she doesn't want to see them euthanized after training purposes. Like how to put in IVs etc.

I don't know what's currently going on with my SIL's practice because her brother and I are divorced, but I know her place did get absorbed into a big thing and got a whole new giant building in the next city. I also know from before that at home she and her household were reaching capacity with the animals she was taking home, though. And, one day while she was at work, two of the dogs she thought she knew well just packed up in their nice outdoor pen situation and killed one of the vulnerable older ones she was trying to save.

Animals are not humans

[Anonymous]

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:It can be hard to be brave, and do the right thing for an animal that doesn't have any autonomy.

Please ignore the posts comparing dogs to human children. They are probably bots bought and paid for by the private equity veterinary industry. Which is only interested in extracting as much money from you as possible, and actively plays on your guilt. This industry does NOT have the best interest of pet animals in mind. Only profit. And it uses some pretty insidious techniques to separate you from increasingly eye-popping sums.

There's a reason pets have gotten so expensive. Sure, there are think-pieces galore about increasing isolation and the crisis of loneliness, but the pets piece is at least partially by design. All that *content*, all those "cute" clothes (clothes! for animals!), the damp-eyed emotional messaging... it's a con. Or at the very least, a marketing strategy. It is deployed to change your thinking around animals, and to increase your spending. f

Short answer: love your pets, be kind to all animals, know that the time to say goodbye might be before the last breath.

This is fascinating. I’m not sure how bots work - are you saying private companies buy bots to spread messages/push ideas? I didn’t realize this.

I appreciate your post; you helped me look at things from a new lens.

It's a well known thing for foreign bots to attack Americans on known weaknesses ... they go for race, lack of medical care and in general, attention to pets. I had a high degree of suspicion when someone posted earlier that in the US state of (GA? Maybe) someone claimed there were large packs of stray dogs that roamed the streets and she didn't feel safe walking with her kids. Or something.

In the US one of the things we somehow sort of get right (that being a comparative term) is that we actually do have things like animal control officers and fines and required licensing for our pet dogs who have to be vaccinated to get those licensing.

Where they DO have roaming packs of stray dogs ... that would be Russia and only because I have relatives who still live in Russia. Also the middle east. Lots of stray cats and dogs alike.

But that's not really a thing in the US. Who here who lives in the US has a real problem with roaming stray unvaccinated domestic dogs who are not coyotes or wolves?

That was made up imho

[Anonymous]

"I was talking about a dog. They usually need vaccinations multiple times per year."

No, they don't lol

If they're healthy they get seen once a year. And Rabies vaccinations which are necessary for licensing in your jurisdiction are only needed every 3 years.

Other vaccinations like distemper I lose track of because distemper is just not in my personal experience, but you don't need to take a dog into the vet multiple times a year if they are otherwise sound happy animals who eat and drink and all that good stuff.